Raymond Young says fears of mainlandisation should not stop us teaching simplified characters in Hong Kong schools, because our children will need to communicate with people from the mainland

As a locally educated Chinese person, I consider the simplification of Chinese characters to be an affront to the aesthetics of the Chinese language. It is a massive dumbing-down for the sake of simplicity, somewhat like adopting the word “telly” as the official term for “television”. The simplified script looks foreign to us, and some of the words are a far cry from their elegant original forms used in our beloved traditional Chinese calligraphy and poetry.

Contrary to popular belief, the use of simplified characters was not initiated by the Communist government but by the Kuomintang back in the 1930s, for the purpose of promoting literacy in China. However, the jury is still out as to whether people do learn to read faster in simplified characters, as illiteracy is still not eradicated in China, but Hong Kong and Taiwan have achieved full literacy using the traditional form. Nowadays, with computer inputting technology, the ease and speed of writing in simplified characters has also ceased to be a benefit.

We may not be enamoured of simplified Chinese characters, but know them we must. The “localists” who claim to champion local values, and the likes of Civic Party member Claudia Mo Man-ching, are objecting to students learning simplified characters on the grounds that they are not commonly used in Hong Kong. The more serious accusation is that it is a conscious step towards “mainlandisation”.
We may not be enamoured of simplified Chinese characters, but know them we must

The latter concern is clearly groundless as the government’s proposition is not to replace traditional characters with simplified ones, but to help students acquire a reading knowledge of simplified characters. If we shared the localists’ fear of mainlandisation, we should perhaps stop teaching our students Putonghua too. The language is after all not “commonly used” here. Language is key to understanding a culture. If we and our next generation cannot read with ease all the written materials published on the mainland, how can we have an informed view of what is going on there?

Hong Kong has always prospered on being an efficient service provider to the world, so what harm can be done by equipping our younger generation to service our biggest client – mainland China – better? Preserving our “local” values, whatever they are, should not be at the expense of our ability to communicate with the 1.3 billion people on the mainland. When China was closed to the world, we used to look down on mainland people as parochial. We even had a term for them – “Ah Charn” – or mainland bumpkins. But now that they have seen the world, and have developed economic and political clout on the international scene, the tables are turned. We are now sometimes referred to as “Kong Charn” – arrogant Hong Kong people who know little about what is happening in the rest of China. I think this term should also include those Hong Kong people who make little effort to learn Putonghua or simplified characters.

The rest of the world is indeed catching up fast in terms of understanding China. Chinese is now becoming a popular second language in schools around the world, and in most cases it is taught through simplified characters. So if the localists had their way, we would not only have difficulty communicating with mainland Chinese, but also communicating with the rest of the world in Chinese. Some time ago, when localists here were protesting against “locust tourists” from the mainland, I was travelling in Korea, and I saw banners in the heart of Seoul with big Chinese words welcoming Chinese tourists – in simplified characters, of course.

Raymond Young is a retired civil servant and currently a columnist and novelist

Defenders of the city’s unique linguistic identity have panned a plan to teach simplified Chinese in schools. But could it help our children get ahead?

Hongkongers’ sensitivity about their language has been pricked again by a mooted plan to teach simplified Chinese in schools.

At the start of last month, it emerged that the Education Bureau’s latest consultation document said local pupils should learn to read simplified characters.

Traditional characters are the norm. The simplified form is used on the mainland, but deemed inferior to the traditional form by some, and sometimes mocked as “crippled” or “mutilated characters”. Intellectuals, educators, parents and localists have all aired views, and public sentiment on the matter was evidenced last week when TVB started using simplified characters during Putonghua newscasts on its J5 channel – sparking 10,000 complaints.

The debate has heightened potency, raging against the backdrop of the Mong Kok riot and the resulting prominence of localism evidenced in last weekend’s New Territories East by-election.

The state-run People’s Daily urged people not to politicise the issue and pin derogatory labels on simplified characters, while Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing said people didn’t need teaching simplified characters and could learn them on their own.

Some say the policy is part of a hidden government agenda to do away with traditional characters along with Cantonese and further ‘mainlandisation’.

Education chief Eddie Ng Hak-kim denied any political intent behind the move, accusing some of distorting the facts and sowing discord. The bureau pointed out that learning simplified Chinese was not an item for consultation now as it had already been stated as a goal in the Chinese Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide in 2002.

The policy most likely went unnoticed then because attention was on other major education reforms, such as the benchmark assessments for teachers, according to Hong Kong Aided Primary School Heads Association honorary chairman Lam Sheung-wan.

The document states that after mastering traditional Chinese, pupils should be able to read simplified characters to widen their reading range and foster better communication with the mainland and overseas, while schools should promote “using Putonghua to teach Chinese language” on campus as a long-term goal.

But the bureau admitted it did not have any evidence that using Putonghua to teach Chinese language would be more effective than using Cantonese.

Last week it received a total of 22,000 public submissions and replies from 338 primary schools, 355 secondary schools and 37 special schools over the consultation, issued in December.

While acknowledging the practical functions of simplified characters, those interviewed by the Post all resoundingly rejected the idea of using them in schools, saying there was no need.

Supporters, especially the city’s international schools – which mostly teach simplified characters – maintain simplification can speed up learning and writing, as well as aiding integration with the mainland.

Local scholars stood by their conviction that traditional script is a legacy of ancient Chinese culture that needs to be preserved. They believe as long as students achieved a good grasp of traditional characters, it would be easy for them to read and recognise the simplified characters without needing extra lessons.

Some academics say traditional characters make it easier to trace meaning and the stories behind their formation.

“I beg the government not to create problems where there are none,” said Chinese language expert Professor Ho Man-koon, of Caritas Institute of Higher Education. “Teachers do not need to specifically teach simplified characters. Students can naturally learn them by guessing and making logical inferences.”

The heads’ association’s Lam agreed. He said: “Students should learn simplified characters only after they achieve a good foundation on traditional characters, usually when they are in high school. The government should refrain from turning a guest into a host otherwise Hong Kong students will be caught in the middle. Traditional characters should serve as the basis of our Chinese language learning, not their simplified forms.”

Legislator Lam Tai-fai, representing the Chinese Manufacturers’ Association of Hong Kong and supervisor of Lam Tai Fai College, said the business sector was ambivalent about students learning simplified characters.

“The knowledge of simplified Chinese has nothing to do with making profits,” he said. “Since traditional Chinese is widely recognised and adopted in Hong Kong, it is better to encourage students to learn simplified Chinese [of their own accord] rather than to make it mandatory.”

Professor Brian Tse Shek-kam, director of the Centre for Advancement of Chinese Language Education and Research at the University of Hong Kong, pointed out that even South Korea realised the importance of learning traditional Chinese characters; it restored them to Korean language and literature textbooks for elementary pupils this year.

There are rising fears that simplified Chinese will gradually replace the traditional form if it becomes part of the subject curriculum. Professor Ho said he believed this was a major concern for the city’s teachers.

[Professor Ho Man-koon said the government could be making ‘problems where there are none’. Photo: Sam Tsang]

“They fear that after students achieve a good grasp of simplified characters and Putonghua, many years later simplified Chinese will fully replace traditional script in their textbooks,” he said.

“They fear simplified characters will bring an end to traditional Chinese teaching and even replace traditional script.”

Eva Chan Sik-chee, convenor of the Parents Concern Group on National Education, warned that the issue being overlooked in 2002 does not mean that there is a consensus on it now.

“The government has not really consulted the public. Many people in the education sector are not even aware of this proposal,” she said. “We are highly concerned about the overall impact of the proposals, including using Putonghua to teach Chinese as a long-term goal.

“We have a feeling that the whole consultation exercise is leaning towards the mainland culture, and made out of a political motive.”

And Lam Sheung-wan believed the government intended to please the Central government with the initiatives.

“I believe after the handover, the government has deliberately done something to please the central government. But something done deliberately can backfire and may end up offending Beijing,” he said.

“If the government wants to use one thing to suppress the other, then it is bound to trigger conflicts. Although the government says this is not compulsory, I think during this sensitive period it should not wake the sleeping dog.”

But Principal Fung Pik-yee of the Aplichau Kaifong Primary School in Ap Lei Chau, said people should not be so sensitive about the issue.

“People are taking it too seriously. I think it is harmless to learn simplified characters as they can serve as a learning tool for reading more mainland textbooks.

“I won’t discourage [my students] to learn by themselves,” she said.

“Do we really need to exaggerate things and conjure up so many conspiracy theories like mainlandisation?”

That said, Fung did not recommend teaching simplified characters in primary schools because students will be easily confused by the two types.

Professor Ho said that was always a key concern for teachers. According to public exam reports, pupils easily made typos in traditional characters because they mix them up with simplified ones.

Lam Sheung-wan said even local teachers are not conversant with the simplification methodology, questioning how they could teach students good Chinese.

He said: “Some simplified words are simply devoid of logic and totally unrelated with their traditional forms or meanings. Students will have difficulties associating the simplified characters with their traditional forms.”

On the subject of mingling cultures, Lam said: “I think there are a lot of good qualities about Hong Kong people that mainland people should learn.

“The most important thing is the qualities of people – staying true to themselves and being an upright person. These qualities are what make Hong Kong a true world-class cosmopolitan city. Without these Hong Kong is nothing more than a cosmopolitan city on the mainland.”

Kelly Yang says whether we allow NETs to harness their creativity to help local educators or expand the current programme while raising local salaries, the goal is the same: to raise education standards as a whole

When it comes to teaching children using more creative forms of instruction, such as project-based learning rather than rote memorisation, there are no greater stalwarts than our city’s Native English Teachers (NETs). All across Hong Kong, NETs are working hard every day to interject creativity and critical thinking into their lessons. For that, I applaud them.

However, the problem we face in Hong Kong of declining English standards runs far deeper than anything the NET scheme can solve on its own. On average, most local schools only gets one NET per school. No one teacher – no matter how hard working – can single-handedly raise the English standard of an entire school.

And if the NET programme, as it currently stands, can’t bring up the English standard, then at HK$710 million, it’s a lot of buck for not much bang. A better way for NETs to make an impact is if they help train local school teachers. NETs are valuable resources on how to teach creatively. If we can harness that expertise and spread it among all local teachers, we’d have a much better shot at truly raising the standard for not just English but the standard for teaching and education as a whole.

Post columnist Alex Lo recently raised an interesting question: why not just expand the NET programme? Instead of having one NET teacher at a school, why not, say, 35 per school? I like this idea in theory; however, I have two concerns. The first is the assumption that our local teachers cannot be trained to teach English properly, that we must import an army of foreigners to get the job done right.

That’s not the way Singapore did it and I don’t believe that’s the way we have to do it; to say it is underestimates Hong Kong local teachers and their abilities. I’ve worked with local Hong Kong teachers, and I can say they are smart, caring and hard working. They also desperately want to learn how to teach English more effectively and innovatively – but we have to be willing to give those skills to them.

My other concern has to do with salaries. Currently, there’s a great discrepancy between what a NET earns and what other local teachers make. Taking into consideration fringe benefits, many NETs make three times as much as a normal local school teacher.

NETs are valuable resources on how to teach creatively. Photo: SCMP PicturesIn my experience as an educator, any time the discrepancy is that high between people who do similar jobs and teach all the same kids, you’re asking for trouble. There is nothing more harmful in a school than the feeling of inequality. It builds resentment and animosity, neither of which is conducive to learning or teaching.

Recently, this blatant bias for foreign teachers manifested itself in one school openly advertising for a Caucasian teacher. I believe teachers should be hired based on quality of teaching, not ethnicity. I also believe that how much a teacher makes should be tied to experience, rather than country of origin. As such, if we want to expand the NET programme, which I am 100 per cent on board with, we need to first raise the salaries and benefits of local teachers to be on a par with NETs. It’s only fair.

Ultimately, local teachers and NETs need to figure out a way to work together. Whether that’s through NETs training local teachers or expanding the NET scheme while also raising local school teachers’ salaries to eliminate the income gap, the end goal is the same: raising Hong Kong’s English standards.

NETs have laid the groundwork; now it’s time to build the house. If we sit back and waste all our time bickering, we will all lose.

Kelly Yang teaches writing at The Kelly Yang Project, an after-school centre for writing and debate in Hong Kong. She is a graduate of UC Berkeley and Harvard Law School.

Michael Chugani says despite all the angst, extra lessons and pressure on children, Hong Kong should realise we’re on a hiding to nothing by trying to raise standards for everyone

Sometime back, I asked a senior government official at a dinner function if he would come to my TV show. He replied sheepishly he didn’t think his English was good enough. My first thought was it sounded like an excuse but then realised he was actually being quite candid. He seldom speaks English at length in public and I have to admit he lacks the fluency I would expect from a senior official.

Recently, I had a guest whose below-average grasp of the language triggered some viewers to suggest I invite only those who can speak English fluently. That is a tall order, with standards on a steady decline. Being Hong Kong-born and raised, I can alternate easily between English and Cantonese but now find myself speaking mostly Cantonese out of necessity. Shop assistants often start off speaking to me in broken English but don’t hide their relief when I reply in Cantonese.

I now speak in Cantonese even with locals who can speak good English. Most of them prefer that anyway. How often do you hear local Chinese speaking in English to each other even if they are proficient in the language? I can imagine Executive Councillor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung doing that with former legislator Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee. Both are more comfortable speaking in English. But don’t expect former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa to speak in English with protégé Leung Chun-ying, even though both speak the language fluently.

Legislator Michael Tien Puk-sun, credited with making TV stations carry English subtitles for English news broadcasts to help viewers learn the language, confessed to me some time back he too finds himself speaking mostly in Cantonese out of necessity to communicate with constituents. For years, I’ve pushed the government to use English more often since it’s also an official language here.

I have even suggested that senior officials set an example by using English from time to time in the Legislative Council. The government is only paying lip service when it stresses the importance of English. The reality is that English is not even on the radar screen. MTR officials rush to go on Chinese radio phone-in shows to explain major service breakdowns but always refuse to do the same on English radio. Their mentality is that it’s not worth coming on English radio phone-in shows because of the small listener base. I know this for a fact because I co-host an English radio show.

Hong Kong has long agonised over its falling standards of English. We tell ourselves English is the world’s commercial language which is crucial for our success as an international city. We look enviously at regional rival Singapore where English is widely spoken. But perhaps it’s time for Hong Kong to let go. Billboards and posters advertising English tutorials are everywhere. Parents exert pressure on children to raise their English standards.

But let’s face it, overall English standards here will never rise. We have lost the cultural setting conducive to raising it. It is pointless for people to attend English classes but switch back to Cantonese once classes are over. You cannot improve your English if you think in Chinese.

Most of the young shop assistants who are relieved when I speak to them in Cantonese often floor me with their Putonghua fluency. Restaurant waiters and supermarket cashiers who once could string a few words of English together are now proficient in Putonghua. Perhaps it’s time for us to believe an overall raising of English standards is impossible, that our success is not dependent on it. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have succeeded without depending on it.

I don’t mean we should abandon English altogether in favour of Putonghua. I’m just saying we should aim at targeted rather than a wholesale improvement of English. Turn out more people like Martin Lee Chu-ming, Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun and Occupy student leader Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok who are adept at learning English. And let go people such as Scholarism leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung who are less adept at learning it.